I wouldnt touch 'em. To me it is clearly cheating so Ill never do it. Im quite cut and dried like that. I hate those that put their selfish motives above that of the sport.

In fact it really angers me.

Well, that's great that you wouldn't, and I am sure there are people like you. But if you have a family, and few other skills in the job market, those steroids could be the difference in getting to the bottom of the major leagues (and still making millions) vs. not getting there at all. If you wouldn't use steroids, you're a better man than I because I'd use them in an instant if it means millions vs. nothing. An instant and I wouldn't be morally conflicted about it either. Who cares about the sport? I've got a family and a future to secure. If I get caught in a year, well I probably made more in that year than ten years outside anyway. If I can keep it going, well that's just great too.

Steroids increase power and all those things, but what a lot of people use it for are their injuries. Recovering from injury quicker is a huge advantage in sport, and you see people doing that all the time, especially as in many cases, you stop being tested when you're injured. Even in cricket, Warne's primary motivation was probably injury prevention. While guys like Akhtar/Asif did it for the muscle and power.

Either way, I don't see the big deal. It's just steroids. I certainly don't see it as being anti-sport as many other things that go on. Baseball breaks attendance and money records all the time, despite the massive use of steroids. NFL is by far the most successful competition in the US (and could be the world because while soccer is bigger, every single team in the NFL churns out millions in profit), and you know what you get when you first test positive for steroids? A confidential warning. Then suspension for four games on next violation. A player recently said that about 50-70% of NFL players are pumping steroids.

And you know what? I don't care. I love the sport and I enjoy every minute whether it was being pumped full of steroids or not. I said this before, but if the Philadelphia Eagles win the superbowl next year, and it comes out that every single player on the team was pumped full of Nandrolone, you know what would happen? The whole team would get a parade anyway, they'd be lauded all the same, and I'd be the first person there when they get the parade. I'd say good for them, Philadelphia needed the championship and I'm glad they got it for us, doing what it takes without getting caught. When a large percentage of people are using, it evens out and its perfectly fine. The problem is when the regulations are strict and only few people can use. It's when that happens that a few people have an advantage that no one does. But even then, good for them for beating the system. It's the job of the regulatory agencies to keep the game fair and even, and its the job of the players to push those limits.

Last edited by silentstriker; 27-06-2008 at 01:14 PM.

Originally Posted by KungFu_Kallis

Peter Siddle top scores in both innings....... Matthew Wade gets out twice in one ball

He tested positive for a banned steroid masking substance during a time he was recovering from injury, an injury he recovered from far quicker than usual players would. But whatever, that's not the point of my paragraph.

"The PFA does not represent players when they have broken the law and been convicted on non-football matters."- Gordon Taylor in 2009 following Marlon King's release after a prison sentence for sexual assault & ABH

Does the UK care about a non-Wimbledon tournament when no Brits are doing any good though? If so, that's cool.

On Rusedski, he was a confusing chap. Seemed to me that he was a bit bitter that Henman would receive so much attention even though Greg won more tournaments than him. Good player for a few years though.

Nah, we do care. Rusedski won the BBC Sports Personality of the year just for making the US Open final. We don't care about Murray so much because he's a bit of a cock.

Originally Posted by Jono

Does the UK care about a non-Wimbledon tournament when no Brits are doing any good though? If so, that's cool.

On Rusedski, he was a confusing chap. Seemed to me that he was a bit bitter that Henman would receive so much attention even though Greg won more tournaments than him. Good player for a few years though.

I'd say they get a decent following. My Dad phoned me instantly in January to tell me of Federer's exit from the US Open, there are plenty of people I see in work constantly checking scores for matches that don't involve Murray.

Not a big Tennis fan myself like but I'd say it does get a decent following. And Wimbledon, sure every year there is hype over whoever the British #1 is, but there is also a big appreciation for the great players. It was just as popular prior to Henman/Rusedski when we never had anyone doing anything.

Events in the Olympics, worldwide, is seriously only followed by many once every four years (two years if you include some Cth Games events). Its quite weird.

Because a lot of the events occur without much media attention or coverage. This is a chance to see the best of the best perform and prove it. I am actually interested in seeing who wins the 100 metres, 200 metres, long jump, pole vault etc etc. but don't have the time or desire to follow it outsides of the Olympics.

President of SKAS - Kat is King | Proud member of CVAAS - One of the best | LRPLTAS - Rosco rocks!Go Tigers!
R.I.P. Fardin & Craig

no offense but that's a seriously hypocritical attitude by the developed nations...they wanted the globalization in the first place because they wanted expanding markets for their products...so they talked/coerced a lot of developing countries into doing it...and they didn't give a hoot about the local industries in those developing markets succumbing to the assault of global competition....well finally they are getting their global markets...just forgot that global trade works both ways, didn't they(and it is not as if the playing fields are anything close to level even now)? after all this, it is so stupid to hear the moaning and groaning about industries/work going to so-called 3rd world countries and a newly developed sense of "patriotism"....sorry clapo i know this is off-topic and the rant is not directed specifically at you but i see this sort of attitude a lot around me nowadays and the hypocrisy just sickens me...

Well, that's great that you wouldn't, and I am sure there are people like you. But if you have a family, and few other skills in the job market, those steroids could be the difference in getting to the bottom of the major leagues (and still making millions) vs. not getting there at all. If you wouldn't use steroids, you're a better man than I because I'd use them in an instant if it means millions vs. nothing. An instant and I wouldn't be morally conflicted about it either. Who cares about the sport? I've got a family and a future to secure. If I get caught in a year, well I probably made more in that year than ten years outside anyway. If I can keep it going, well that's just great too.

Steroids increase power and all those things, but what a lot of people use it for are their injuries. Recovering from injury quicker is a huge advantage in sport, and you see people doing that all the time, especially as in many cases, you stop being tested when you're injured. Even in cricket, Warne's primary motivation was probably injury prevention. While guys like Akhtar/Asif did it for the muscle and power.

Either way, I don't see the big deal. It's just steroids. I certainly don't see it as being anti-sport as many other things that go on. Baseball breaks attendance and money records all the time, despite the massive use of steroids. NFL is by far the most successful competition in the US (and could be the world because while soccer is bigger, every single team in the NFL churns out millions in profit), and you know what you get when you first test positive for steroids? A confidential warning. Then suspension for four games on next violation. A player recently said that about 50-70% of NFL players are pumping steroids.

And you know what? I don't care. I love the sport and I enjoy every minute whether it was being pumped full of steroids or not. I said this before, but if the Philadelphia Eagles win the superbowl next year, and it comes out that every single player on the team was pumped full of Nandrolone, you know what would happen? The whole team would get a parade anyway, they'd be lauded all the same, and I'd be the first person there when they get the parade. I'd say good for them, Philadelphia needed the championship and I'm glad they got it for us, doing what it takes without getting caught. When a large percentage of people are using, it evens out and its perfectly fine. The problem is when the regulations are strict and only few people can use. It's when that happens that a few people have an advantage that no one does. But even then, good for them for beating the system. It's the job of the regulatory agencies to keep the game fair and even, and its the job of the players to push those limits.

Then why not just legalise it in the first place then?

Sorry but I couldn't disagree anymore. I would rather watch guys who are using their own natural ability then some douche who's "achievements" have been done through the work of major Corporation.

These guys should go on holiday in America.

Beware the lollipop of mediocrity. Lick once and you suck forever...

RIP Fardin Qayyumi, a true legend of CW

Originally Posted by Boobidy

Bradman never had to face quicks like Sharma and Irfan Pathan. He wouldn't of lasted a ball against those 2, not to mention a spinner like Sehwag.

Sorry but I couldn't disagree anymore. I would rather watch guys who are using their own natural ability then some douche who's "achievements" have been done through the work of major Corporation.

Define natural ability? It's a fairly arbitrary line which supplements we ban and which we don't. Most athletes will take supplements of some kind. Even if they are pumped full of nandrolone, it's still their muscles, which were gotten through better supplements than the normal protein shake available at your local store.

Where's the line drawn? And if it can't be enforced, and there is very little benefit in drawing it, what purpose does it serve?

I believe it is. Most of the NFL players are Drug Cheats and it is teh most popular sport. Baseball was more popular when Drug Cheats were breaking the Home Run record. One has to assume that it is a fairly accepted in North America.

Well giving out piss weak "punishments", I am not surprised. In countries like France they would run the risk of going to jail on the basis of "Sporting fraud". Same applies in Italy, Belgium, Germany, Spain, and Holland IIRC.

I mean how many guys in the MLB would be breaking home run records if it wasn't for drugs?

I would say that if you ask a pointed question, most people would say they don't like steroids and wish they didn't exist. On a practical level, no one cares. And if you ask if it would be worth it to you if your entire team was pumped full of steroids if it means you could win a championship, you'd get an overwhelming yes.

Originally Posted by Craig

I mean how many guys in the MLB would be breaking home run records if it wasn't for drugs?

Not as many. The question is, does it affect my enjoyment, or popularity of the sport because of it? The answer is a resounding no, at least from me.

Athletes have gotten bigger and stronger "naturally" too, via better nutrition, supplements and training. Steroids, as far as I am concerned, are just other supplements. To me, the line is very blurred. After a weight lifting session, many players take over the counter or prescribed protein shakes that pretty much do what steroids do, to a lesser degree. The line we draw in terms of what is legal and what isn't is extremely arbitrary.

That's the big elephant in the room no one wants to talk about. At what point does a substance become too good to take? Where is the line there?